Comments on: Mathematics and sexhttp://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/05/19/mathematics-and-sex/
A graduate student in mathematics and a modern languages major take on politics and culture with the following aspirational motto: ‘Deregulate your mind.’Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:57:44 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.3By: shonkhttp://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/05/19/mathematics-and-sex/#comment-523
Thu, 19 May 2005 17:15:52 +0000http://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/05/19/mathematics-and-sex/#comment-523You’ve picked up on the issue of relative mathematical ability between the sexes, but of course we should keep in mind that both of them are ostensibly talking about scientific ability, and it seems to me that the presumption that the two are identical (which of course is their presumption, not yours) is somewhat unjustified.

I definitely agree with this, although maybe not precisely in the sense you mean. One could make an argument that, except in the furthest reaches of theoretical physics, scientists use math much more in the “plug-and-chug” style than in the “conceptual” style. However, scientists, presumably (I’ve never been much good at science myself, so I can’t say definitively) must be more conceptual within the context of their own subject matter (this is certainly the case in theoretical physics, as Hilbert’s comment on Einstein illustrates, but I assume something similar holds for the more “prosaic” sciences as well).

Of course, one must keep in mind that mathematicians tend to have a bit of an institutional disdain for scientists as mere number-crunchers, so that perspective may be coloring my comments.

]]>By: Curthttp://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/05/19/mathematics-and-sex/#comment-522
Thu, 19 May 2005 10:20:00 +0000http://www.sellingwaves.com/2005/05/19/mathematics-and-sex/#comment-522I’m not sure of the true importance of this point, but I find it interesting that Spelke (and Pinker, to a lesser extent), pretty much delineate scientific ability down to ability in mathematics. You’ve picked up on the issue of relative mathematical ability between the sexes, but of course we should keep in mind that both of them are ostensibly talking about scientific ability, and it seems to me that the presumption that the two are identical (which of course is their presumption, not yours) is somewhat unjustified. It’s true that mathematical ability is essential to science, but I recall David Hilbert saying about Einstein something to the effect of: “Every schoolboy in Göttingen knows more about the equations than him, but he did the [conceptual] work.” His doctoral advisor habitually referred to him as a “lazy dog” for working out problems representationally rather than through equations. That is perhaps the most extreme example, but it seems to me that many of the sciences, particularly physics, are more about spatial representation and conceptual modelling even than front-line mathematics, and less about analytical equation-solving.

p.s. I’d say Spelke is more naïve than disingenuous for thinking that because male and female babies are equally good at counting objects they will later be equally talented astrophysicists, but I would say that her main disingenuity is by following back on the old canard, which so few on her side of the debate seem to be able to resist, that even if women are temperamentally less suited to professional science than men, that probably means that the whole system of science is unfairly biased, i.e. too competition-driven, not compassionate enough, etc. This is, to put it mildly, a bit of a departure from the premises of the debate. The claim that if current science practice does favor men then we are somehow not “doing” science right just shows how pre-determined and inflexible the agenda is, which is not turning out the most highly-qualified scientists. Plus, if you throw out competition, or rather the objective criteria by which competition becomes meaningful, you have social science, in which women are indeed much more prominent, but I don’t know of too many who would brag of the achievements of the social sciences in the last hundred years relative to the physical sciences, and plus, based on my experience, in these disciplines the environment is actually a lot less compassionate and more vicious because, in the absence of objective standards of accomplishment, those involved seem to be aware that the only way they can truly distinguish themselves from their colleagues is by demolishing their reputations.